Are there any objections to merging this article with the [[Arch User Repository]] article? It seems odd to redirect users to a separate "usage" page.

+

The wiki suggests using

+

makepkg -s

−

-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 15:21, 12 March 2010 (EST)

+

and then

+

pacman -U foo.pkg.tar.xz

−

== Removing / changing the part about [community] ==

+

I recently, on another wiki page, came across the {{ic|-i}} option for makepkg which seems to make the separate pacman command unnecessary. Is this actually the case? Or is there a reason not to use the {{ic|makepkg -i}} option?<br>

The [community] repo is enabled by default in {{ic|pacman.conf}}. If disabled/removed, it can be enabled by uncommenting/adding these two lines:

−

{{hc|/etc/pacman.conf|2=

−

<nowiki>

−

...

−

[community]

−

Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

−

...

−

</nowiki>

−

}}

−

...<br>

−

Any typos would have to be fixed of course :p <br>

−

Is community still disabled by default in abs.conf btw?

−

−

[[User:Mr.Elendig|Mr.Elendig]] 21:37, 21 November 2009 (EST)

−

−

:I don't think the [community] section should be removed; improved, maybe. Where does this confusion arise from? What do you mean by "separated from AUR"? My understanding is that they are very much connected.

−

−

:-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 22:33, 23 January 2010 (EST)

−

−

== JSON ==

−

There should be some sort of info on the JSON interface [[User:Daenyth|Daenyth]] 20:10, 29 November 2009 (EST)

−

−

== Standards on content ==

−

I believe that there should be more comprehensive, clear, and explicit standards on what content is allowed to be installed by an AUR package. There already exist two guidelines:

−

−

1. usefulness:

−

"Make sure the package is useful. Will anyone else want to use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission."

−

−

2. IP restrictions:

−

"For most cases, everything is permitted, as long as you are in compliance with the licensing terms of the software..."

−

−

The former is acceptable because "usefulness" is inherently subjective. The latter does state an important restriction, but implicitly assumes that only software is permissible for AUR packages, when in fact there exist packages within the AUR which install only non-executable data. I ''believe'' that it is overall community consensus that such packages are permissible as long as they install documentation for a particular software package, a set of ''closely''-related software packages, or the Archlinux distro as a whole (e.g., offline Archlinux wiki), and that documentation not directly applicable to the aforementioned, any standards (e.g., FHS, OFM), and any books (e.g., Pro Git, Crime and Punishment, etc.) are outside the scope of the AUR. Any ideas? Do these proposed standards accurately reflect community consensus? [[User:Rnabioullin|Rnabioullin]] ([[User talk:Rnabioullin|talk]]) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

−

−

:This is an interesting observation indeed, but it goes beyond the scope of this wiki talk page; I suggest you start a thread in the forum or the mailing lists. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 12:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:30, 15 November 2013

Installing Packages

The wiki suggests using

makepkg -s

and then

pacman -U foo.pkg.tar.xz

I recently, on another wiki page, came across the -i option for makepkg which seems to make the separate pacman command unnecessary. Is this actually the case? Or is there a reason not to use the makepkg -i option?
-- Hundovir (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, but -i is not necessary either, and the point is to actually educate people on how it works, they can find the faster ways later.